CVE-2009-0483
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Bugzilla 2.22 before 2.22.7, 3.0 before 3.0.7, 3.2 before 3.2.1, and 3.3 before 3.3.2 allows remote attackers to delete keywords and user preferences via a link or IMG tag to (1) editkeywords.cgi or (2) userprefs.cgi.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Bugzilla allows remote attackers to delete keywords and user preferences by tricking authenticated users into visiting malicious pages containing crafted links or IMG tags targeting editkeywords.cgi and userprefs.cgi endpoints.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 2.10= 2.12= 2.14= 2.14.1= 2.14.2= 2.14.3= 2.14.4= 2.14.5= 2.16= 2.16.1= 2.16.2= 2.16.3CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:P
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Determine installed Bugzilla versionLocate the version file in your Bugzilla installation (typically at ./Bugzilla/Version.pm or check the admin interface under 'Parameters' > 'Required Settings')Affected if The installed version is 2.10, 2.12, 2.14, 2.14.1, 2.14.2, 2.14.3, 2.14.4, 2.14.5, 2.16, 2.16.1, 2.16.2, or 2.16.3
-
Verify editkeywords.cgi script existsCheck for the presence of editkeywords.cgi in your Bugzilla cgi-bin directory (typically ./cgi-bin/editkeywords.cgi or ./Bugzilla/editkeywords.cgi)Affected if The file exists and the Bugzilla version matches an affected release listed above
-
Verify userprefs.cgi script existsCheck for the presence of userprefs.cgi in your Bugzilla cgi-bin directory (typically ./cgi-bin/userprefs.cgi or ./Bugzilla/userprefs.cgi)Affected if The file exists and the Bugzilla version matches an affected release listed above
-
Inspect CSRF token implementation in editkeywords.cgiOpen editkeywords.cgi and search for 'token', 'csrf', or 'formtoken' function calls that validate requestsAffected if No CSRF or token validation routine is found within the script, indicating the vulnerability is present
You are affected if your Bugzilla version is one of the listed affected versions AND the editkeywords.cgi and userprefs.cgi scripts lack CSRF token validation logic.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade to Bugzilla 2.22.7, 3.0.7, 3.2.1, 3.3.2 or later which include CSRF token protection, or implement anti-CSRF tokens (form tokens) in the vulnerable editkeywords.cgi and userprefs.cgi scripts.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation10.0 h
- Testing5.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,904.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-0483 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2009-0483 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data